4 ms·

> Is BASIC more powerful than Assembly? I doubt it, you can do anything in assembly, and BASIC is deliberately limited [4]. Doesn't this definition make the "p

> Is BASIC more powerful than Assembly? I doubt it, you can do anything in assembly, and BASIC is deliberately limited [4]. Doesn't this definition make the "power" of all Turing-complete languages equal? > In other words, Lisp was the Flub of its day. A few years ago Flub was Haskell, and recently the new contender appears to be Rust, judging from the buzz. If the author thinks Haskell and, of all languages, Rust are most powerful, I think he has significantly misunderstood Graham's original essay. Among other things, they are statically checked with relatively difficult types that can take a long time to get right. That is obviously not the kind of language Graham had in mind for agily prototyping around corporate behemoths. The author seems to define Flub as "the most popular language among the elite". Lisp was rarely even that, however, and we also have painfully obvious evidence of the most popular not being the most powerful. As such, I think a large portion of this essay hinges on a strawman: he dismantles a definition of Flub that Graham never used. > The Flub Paradox can be stated like this: although Flub is self-evidently more powerful and productive than Blub, relatively few people use it and its effect on the real landscape of innovation appears minimal. Is this really a paradox anymore? We have so many examples of inferior products dominating through inertia that I've completely lost my faith in humanity at this point. I could add a few more points, but I think that would only be unnecessarily negative. I do like some points from the essay. I agree that we should take another look at Paul Graham's power continuum: for instance, the power of Lisp scales with lines of code (with low LOC, macros don't really enter the equation, and using a "batteries included" language with comprehensive libraries is probably faster). Haskell is easier than many agile languages to refactor, another important dimension to consider. And so on.

stevedonovan 11y ago
My mistake was to do exactly what PG did not do; name names. By Flub I mean any new language that its users would like to see displacing Blub. I mentioned Haskell and Rust as _examples_ of languages which have gone through popularity surges, and remain curious why they haven't made more of an impact, by PG's original logic: pick the most powerful language you know.
- echu_marbdan 11y ago
  I don't think naming names was a mistake; rather, I think the names demonstrate that your thesis doesn't have anything to do with "Beating the Averages". I mean, by your definition, Flub is literally every new language, modulo a few that are too domain-specific. Hell, Flub need not even be a powerful language, just a language with crackpot users. So, rather than about being any averages, it appears to me that your point is just to not-so-subtly poke at anyone who thinks any language is better than the status quo (if so, then why hasn't it made an impact?!). I don't see that as being a difficult question in general; there are many real-world problems, such as technological inertia and corporate culture, that already skew the chances of any new language. However, in this case, where you've broadly directed this question at, well, everyone, I'm not sure if an answer would do you any good. What is true for Haskell may not be true for Rust (which is way too new to have made a big impact), which may not be true for any given crackpot language, which, to avoid offending anyone, I'll call Crud. Aside from ruffling feathers, was there any point to this?
  - stevedonovan 11y ago
    Every day I work with C++, and I've learned not to shoot myself in the foot. If it were the pinnacle of PL development, I would be depressed; there has to be a successor at some point (Data point: who remembers Algol 68 or PL/1?). It would please me if something like Nim gained traction, because it's C++ _done cleanly_. I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. (I apologize for ruffling feathers, by the way; I suspect I have a nasty sense of humour.)
    - echu_marbdan 11y ago
      C++ is obviously not the pinnacle of PL development, but real-world impact is something else entirely. Unfortunately, the data point doesn't mean much; we tend to, collectively, reach a platform that's "good enough" and then just stop looking. So just because Algol 68 is no longer used does not mean C++ will eventually go the same way; indications are that it's a "good enough" language that will continue to see massive use. More to the point, everything, or at least most things, written in C++ would have to be rewritten. This is enormous inertia compared to Algol 68. >I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. I don't get your point (not trying to be rude; I literally don't get how it ties in to your article).
fmstephe 11y ago
>... another important dimension to consider. That's it, right there. One crucial point is that the elegant simplicity of the 'programming language power' rating is in fact full of messy bits and a multitude of dimensions.

stevedonovan 11y ago

My mistake was to do exactly what PG did not do; name names. By Flub I mean any new language that its users would like to see displacing Blub. I mentioned Haskell and Rust as _examples_ of languages which have gone through popularity surges, and remain curious why they haven't made more of an impact, by PG's original logic: pick the most powerful language you know.

echu_marbdan 11y ago
I don't think naming names was a mistake; rather, I think the names demonstrate that your thesis doesn't have anything to do with "Beating the Averages". I mean, by your definition, Flub is literally every new language, modulo a few that are too domain-specific. Hell, Flub need not even be a powerful language, just a language with crackpot users. So, rather than about being any averages, it appears to me that your point is just to not-so-subtly poke at anyone who thinks any language is better than the status quo (if so, then why hasn't it made an impact?!). I don't see that as being a difficult question in general; there are many real-world problems, such as technological inertia and corporate culture, that already skew the chances of any new language. However, in this case, where you've broadly directed this question at, well, everyone, I'm not sure if an answer would do you any good. What is true for Haskell may not be true for Rust (which is way too new to have made a big impact), which may not be true for any given crackpot language, which, to avoid offending anyone, I'll call Crud. Aside from ruffling feathers, was there any point to this?
- stevedonovan 11y ago
  Every day I work with C++, and I've learned not to shoot myself in the foot. If it were the pinnacle of PL development, I would be depressed; there has to be a successor at some point (Data point: who remembers Algol 68 or PL/1?). It would please me if something like Nim gained traction, because it's C++ _done cleanly_. I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. (I apologize for ruffling feathers, by the way; I suspect I have a nasty sense of humour.)
  - echu_marbdan 11y ago
    C++ is obviously not the pinnacle of PL development, but real-world impact is something else entirely. Unfortunately, the data point doesn't mean much; we tend to, collectively, reach a platform that's "good enough" and then just stop looking. So just because Algol 68 is no longer used does not mean C++ will eventually go the same way; indications are that it's a "good enough" language that will continue to see massive use. More to the point, everything, or at least most things, written in C++ would have to be rewritten. This is enormous inertia compared to Algol 68. >I was just pointing out that adoption of new languages is very much "Crossing the Chasm" - after the enthusiastic early adopters, the gap until the mainstream starts listening. I don't get your point (not trying to be rude; I literally don't get how it ties in to your article).

fmstephe 11y ago

>... another important dimension to consider. That's it, right there. One crucial point is that the elegant simplicity of the 'programming language power' rating is in fact full of messy bits and a multitude of dimensions.